New data released Wednesday by research firm Gartner shows Apple as the No. 7 overall worldwide cell phone maker, with a total 2.7 percent market share.

Gartner's numbers show Apple having sold 8.4 million iPhones in the first calendar quarter of 2010, listed as "terminal sales to end users." The total is less than the 8.75 million handset sales Apple reported for the January-through-March period in its quarterly earnings.

Gartner's figures show Apple growing from 3.9 million iPhones sold in the first quarter of 2009, when the company had a 1.5 percent share of the total cell phone market. The 2010 numbers show Apple behind rivals Motorola, Research in Motion and Nokia.

The numbers, however, contradict those from earlier this week released by iSuppli, which showed Apple edging Motorola to become the No. 6 overall cell phone maker in the world. Motorola, in iSuppli's tally, came in eighth. The iSuppli numbers were listed as shipments in the first quarter of 2010, while Gartner's tally cites sales.

Both sets of data agree on the top cell phone maker, Nokia, with well over 100 million handsets moved in the quarter. Samsung came in second and LG took third in both.

Gartner said Apple saw a 112.2 percent increase in mobile device sales in the first quarter of 2010, representing its strongest quarter ever.

"Growth came partly from new communication service providers in established markets, such as the UK, and stronger sales in new markets such as China and South Korea," said Carolina Milanesi, research vice president at Gartner. "The second quarter of 2010 will be a very important one for Apple. We expect that Apple will present its new iPhone in June during its Worldwide Developer Conference, which will be the first to feature the latest release of the iPhone OS that includes welcome improvements for developers and users, such as multitasking."

Apple was also cited as a winner in the mobile operating system market, representing 15.4 percent of all smartphones sold to end users in the first three months of 2010. Apple was behind only Nokia's Symbian, in first, and Research in Motion, in second, with the iPhone maker taking third. Apple was one of only two OS vendors among the top five in the world to increase its market share year-over-year.

The other platform that saw an increase was Google's Android, which grew from just a 1.6 percent market share in 2009 to 9.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. Smartphones represented 17.3 percent of all mobile handset sales in the three months to start 2010, up from 13.6 percent a year prior.

The numbers show that Android's current market share of 9.6 percent is less than Apple's was a year ago, when the iPhone held 10.5 percent of the mobile OS market. Android's first-quarter 2010 sales of 5.2 million are also less than the 8.4 million iPhone OS smartphone sales reported by Gartner.

But Android also moved ahead of Microsoft's Windows Mobile for the first time ever in the three-month period, according to Gartner.

"As seen with the iPad and web books based on Google's Android platform, mobile OS ecosystems are developing and will move beyond smartphones to continue to deliver consumer value and a rich user experience," said Roberta Cozza, principal research analyst at Gartner.

Of course, since Symbian and RIM don't have iPod Touch or iPads running their OS, the addressable market for app developers isn't fully represented by this chart. And while the Android is starting to see additional form factors, the jury is still out how big the addressable market is for a single binary distribution of an app in the Android marketplace. (ie. The first two Android tablets can't run Marketplace apps, and Android phones have many different versions in active use.)

In other words, Apple appears to be playing a slightly different game than the others by not just chasing market share. I think they learned their lessons on how to attract developers after years of the Macintosh being a tiny percentage but disproportionately influential.

The numbers, however, contradict those from earlier this week released by iSuppli, which showed Apple edging Motorola to become the No. 6 overall cell phone maker in the world. Motorola, in iSuppli's tally, came in eighth. The iSuppli numbers were listed as shipments in the first quarter of 2010, while Gartner's tally cites sales.

To a trained reporter, this should not be a surprise. Both numbers are estimates. Even the US Bureau of Census data, e.g., the 10Y US Census, which is quite extensive (employing several tens of thousands of census staff) are themselves estimates, perhaps with much less margin of error than that of Gartner and iSuppli.

More than likely, if they included the margin of error, the difference between some adjacent rankings would be insignificant.

At least, this headline is more objective with respect to relative ranking:

Ps. Probably most important in this article is how Apple has succeeded in the Japanese market that is notoriously 'Japan-centric' when it comes to phones/tech! It shows just how good a product the iPhone really is!

Hmm, firstly last time i've checked there were several iPhone models, secondly the iPhone can be available on multiple carriers outside the US (e.g. France with Orange and SFR).

I think these numbers help put things in perspective: nonetheless the everyday free advertisement, the iPhone has only 2.6% of the worldwide market share, with Apple nowadays still selling twelve time less than Nokia. Yet it won't stop silly so-called "journalists" and editors to compare everything to the iPhone (lately Android handsets), like if it was anywhere near the top: obviously it isn't, being a distant third even in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Anyone have the chart for phone makes sorted by net profit on their phone sales world wide and in USA?

Be sure that Apple is making more money off your back than any other phone makers with their customers: I guess that it is time to celebrate (if you are a shareholder, that is).

Ps. Probably most important in this article is how Apple has succeeded in the Japanese market that is notoriously 'Japan-centric' when it comes to phones/tech! It shows just how good a product the iPhone really is!

Remember when Steve Jobs said they would be satisfied with just 1% of the mobile market? I guess the current numbers please him no end.

A couple of caveats:

> What is most important to look at is what Apple says is most important to them, marketshare is a nominal datapoint from Apple's perspective - the numbers they watch are the number of devices sold, and the profit realized from them. And whether that is increasing or decreasing. Lot's of pundits and would-be pundits (trolls) like to play fast and loose with the numbers.Check behind the numbers to make sure its good data, and the RIGHT data.

> Percentage of anything is only relative to other percentages - so let's keep straight comparing percentage GROWTH, percentage TOTAL MARKET, and percentage SMARTPHONE MARKET

>Also let's remember that critics are only as good as their analysis is valid.

Remember when Steve Jobs said they would be satisfied with just 1% of the mobile market? I guess the current numbers please him no end.

A couple of caveats:

> What is most important to look at is what Apple says is most important to them, marketshare is a nominal datapoint from Apple's perspective - the numbers they watch are the number of devices sold, and the profit realized from them. And whether that is increasing or decreasing. Lot's of pundits and would-be pundits (trolls) like to play fast and loose with the numbers.Check behind the numbers to make sure its good data, and the RIGHT data.

> Percentage of anything is only relative to other percentages - so let's keep straight comparing percentage GROWTH, percentage TOTAL MARKET, and percentage SMARTPHONE MARKET

>Also let's remember that critics are only as good as their analysis is valid.

Hmm, firstly last time i've checked there were several iPhone models, secondly the iPhone can be available on multiple carriers outside the US (e.g. France with Orange and SFR).

Well... The 3G & 3GS are barely different models. OS 4 will definitely widen the gap, but they are still essentially the same phone. They're just selling the old generation. Where Nokia has like 25 different phones ranging from $30 to $500+. I'd say Apple is doing just fine with their "2" models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensi

Be sure that Apple is making more money off your back than any other phone makers with their customers: I guess that it is time to celebrate (if you are a shareholder, that is).

I find statements like that to be hilarious. I assure you Nokia is making some decent money on their Nokia N900, weighing in at $650. The phone is garbage regardless of the tech specs. Have you noticed that ever since the iPhone came out, prices for other phones (like the Motorola Razor, Samsung A900, etc) have gone down significantly. Those phones used to be more expensive than the Iphone when they first came out, and there was nothing special about them. The way I see it, consumers owe Apple a thank you card and some flowers.

Remember when Steve Jobs said they would be satisfied with just 1% of the mobile market? I guess the current numbers please him no end.

That may be Steve Jobs being "modest". If I am not mistaken, he stated that 1%, when the iPhone was still not a sure thing to most everyone or perhaps even to Apple. And that was fro the first year or something. Not the iPhone marketshare for the long duration.

The iPod domination would be more like the way I would consider the goal of Steve Jobs, if he could get his way. In the iPod business plan, eventually Apple catered to various segments of the consumer and not just the "high-end" or high profit margin products.

In the iPod market though, Apple did not have to deal with any other company except its competitors.

This is different in the phone industry. Unlike the music companies, the carriers own the pipeline. Carriers serve as gatekeepers of what Apple and other phone manufacturers can do. Apple, unlike many other phone manufacturers though introduced a new paradigm in the relationship betwen phone manufacturers and carriers. Apple is the only phone manufacturer so far that has more say on how to sell its product and how it would relate to its consumers.

Google tried to one up Apple on this, by trying to bypass the carriers with Nexus One, but it was a strategy that did not work well, at least in the US. It may still work in other parts of the world, if Google is willing to accept much lower profit margin for products like Nexus One.

With the aforementioned restrictions in what carriers and phone manufacturers can do, no phone manufacturer can ever achieve the same domination as Microsoft did in the PC market. Even at the height of Noka's domination of the phone market, it never dominated the US market.

The talk of worldwide monopoly in the phone market therefore is not going to happen because there always the carriers that can rein in the phone manufacturers. Even Apple cannot simply dictate to AT&T. Verizon, also nixed Apple's plan even if in retrospect, Verizon might have wished now that it could have negotiated differently.

The actions of Apple with carriers, in the US and abroad, indicate that while it would want a greater market share, it would not do so, if it loses control of any of its products or its distribution, as well as to how it is priced.

Also, unlike the iPod market, I doubt very much that Apple would sell anything less than a mobile multimedia devices. This precludes simpler phones that will more than likely limit the US and worldwide marketshare of Apple, at least for the iPhone.

But to go back to the basis of the discussion, Apple would want to get as much of that mobile multimedia devices market. To achieve this, it must eventually go beyond GSM telecommunication devices.

And, as noted by others, it expanded its reach by going beyond the limitations of telecommunication industry, first by introducing the iPod Touch (that turned out to be a very able competitor, especially in gaming industry), and now the iPad with potentially a greater potential than either the iPhone or the iPoad Touch -- if Apple continues its innovation and take the time to understand the needs of each of the potential target markets.

Contrary to what one poster stated here, as far as the iPhone OS mobile devices, it will be the Apps that will remain the edge of Apple, if it plays its card well.

It's interesting that RiM has lost mobile OS marketshare YoY, thus they are growing less than the market as a whole.

There is an easy counter to these types of numbers game.

One can also argue (even using Steve Jobs hyperbole): It is amazing how the Android phones outpaced the growth of the iPhone by an astronomical margin. Using the Gartner data:

Android phones: 807%
iPhones: 117 %

Imagine, Android phones YoY growth is about seven times the YoY growth of the iPhone.

Seven fold growth rate of Android over the iPhone!

It's simply amazing!!!

Then one can run wild with speculation:

At these growth rates, Android phones will trounce the iPhone and RIM phones. In 2-3 years, Android phones will eclipse even the Symbian (Nokia) phones, especially if Nokia cannot get its act together.

Android phones will have the largest smartphone marketshare in the world!

It's simply amazing!!!

CGC

N.B.
I am very aware of the potential flaws of the speculation, which I already explored in a number of posts in other threads.

I cautioned that these numbers games should not be played by Apple, Apple-centric sites and passionate followers of Apple. It's very likely that the cummulative Android phones can overtake the market share of iPhone, in a few years, if not sooner.

I can present several factors that could lead to the Android (potentially) outpacing the iPhone. Then, if that happens, the anti-Apple group will crow:

"History repeats itself!"

These anti-Apple flock would feel vindicated for their dislike of anything Apple. And, they will be so happy again.

One can also argue (even using Steve Jobs hyperbole): It is amazing how the Android phones outpaced the growth of the iPhone by an astronomical margin. Using the Gartner data:

Android phones: 807%
iPhones: 117 %

Why can't you ever comment on point? I made a very clear statement about RiM losing marketshare in the ENTIRE handset OS market and you pop in with growth percentage regarding a specific OS. WTH?!

That chart clearly shows Android OS growing rapidly. Who said otherwise? All indicators show Android OS being on more phones than iPhone OS within a year. But what does that have to do with RiM investors or my comment? Nothing!

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Why can't you ever comment on point? I made a very clear statement about RiM losing marketshare in the ENTIRE handset OS market and you pop in with growth percentage regarding a specific OS. WTH?!

That chart clearly shows Android OS growing rapidly. Who said otherwise? All indicators show Android OS being on more phones than iPhone OS within a year. But what does that have to do with RiM investors or my comment? Nothing!

Depending on one's perspective, one can look at the same set of data, and come up with an analysis or give a more positive spin, to suit their own bias or point of view.

Nokia supporters:
We are the predominant cell phone company.

Detractors of Nokia:
But your market share is slipping,

RIM supporters vs Apple:
We have consistently beasten Apple for several quarters now.
Non-supporters of RIM
But your market share is slipping,

Amdroid vs Apple
Already stated.

Open source supporters:
Cite the spectacular growth of Android phones.

Detractors of Open Source
Countre the argument about Android with the negative growth of Linux phones

All statements are consistent with provided data, But contradicting analysis.

Some statements are the conflicting arguments among supporters oe detractors of one peoduct or another whenever a certain data, rumor, or what have you.

The result:
Those of the aame persuasion or sides would readily provide more "supporting" arguments.

On the other hand, those from opposite sides would seldom ever come to agree, even if viewing the same data. Some would isolate what was stated by the other side, and argue against the point. Some would come to "blows". Some would insult each other.

And then some would state, in frustration: "WTH?"

That is the state of discourse in most internet forums these days.

As to RIM, if one possibly looks at the financials of the company for investment over the next few years, it should still be considered a value stock. However, in a stock market climate where the stocks are evaluated by how a company meet the average of analysts expectations, where the ups and downs become the fodder of day traders, and those who are looking to short a company, mor ethan ;iikely RIM will not fare very well. And, it is no longer the grwoth stock it once was. So, growth investors would flee, also depressing the stock price.

As a phone gadget, it shall remain popular, among its long time users. And in fact, RIM is gaining additional customers. The different situation now though is that it is no longer as chic or no longer the "in thing" or the "trailblazer" that it once was, as a smartphone.

The inherent weakness of RIM is that it is so dependent on one product -- its phones and related businesses. That is also true with Nokia. A change in consumer taste would drastically punish such one-trick pony. and what once was a growth stock.

Nokia and RIM may reinvent themselves. but if they remain mainly phone companies. they will continue to exist, make decent profit. The thing is, there are more choices now, and the cell phone market has matured.

Dell had the same fate. Apple was able to escape that fate now, because it was re-invigorated by a chastened Steve Jobs, after he was banished from Apple. The company, under the "new Jobs" learned to reinvent itself.

There is a study of companies though that became the trailblazers of their time. After a number of decades (at most a century), their golden days were a memory, if not completely banished.